Re: RFR: 8271356: Modify jdb to treat an empty command as a repeat of the previous command [v5]
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:22:40 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote: >> Hey Chris, is there any update on this? I've revised the Problem section so >> I think we're waiting on the CSR ticket to be updated accordingly and for >> someone to be assigned for the CSR review. > >> Hey Chris, is there any update on this? I've revised the Problem section so >> I think we're waiting on the CSR ticket to be updated accordingly and for >> someone to be assigned for the CSR review. > > Ok. I updated the CSR with your changes. I'll try to find someone to review > it. > @plummercj Looks like Serguei Spitsyn approved this about a week ago, so I > wanted to make sure this is moving along. Is the CSR proposal now approved or > is there a need for another reviewer? It looks like it needed for me to click on "finalize" so I've done that. Now it is in the "Finalized" state and is I believe waiting final approval by the CSR committee, which I think will result in closing the CSR as "Approved", and you can then complete the review of the PR and push the changes. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5290
Re: RFR: 8271356: Modify jdb to treat an empty command as a repeat of the previous command [v5]
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021 19:22:40 GMT, Chris Plummer wrote: >> Hey Chris, is there any update on this? I've revised the Problem section so >> I think we're waiting on the CSR ticket to be updated accordingly and for >> someone to be assigned for the CSR review. > >> Hey Chris, is there any update on this? I've revised the Problem section so >> I think we're waiting on the CSR ticket to be updated accordingly and for >> someone to be assigned for the CSR review. > > Ok. I updated the CSR with your changes. I'll try to find someone to review > it. @plummercj Looks like Serguei Spitsyn approved this about a week ago, so I wanted to make sure this is moving along. Is the CSR proposal now approved or is there a need for another reviewer? - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5290
Re: RFR: 8275385: Change nested classes in jdk.jdi to static nested classes
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 17:28:37 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote: > Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which can be avoided. Marked as reviewed by amenkov (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5978
Re: RFR: 8274687: JDWP deadlocks if some Java thread reaches wait in blockOnDebuggerSuspend [v4]
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 11:52:09 GMT, Richard Reingruber wrote: > > > Hm, I think this can be simplified by swaping blockOnDebuggerSuspend() and > trackAppResume(). Can't try it today but will on Monday. I've done that with commit https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/5849/commits/0b0fef0e6670c20a0e1e34323847c5a622878469. The locking is clearer I would say. Since `resumeFrameDepth` is now set before resumee's suspendCount is 0 we must block debugger suspends only if `!handlingAppResume` because then we know resumee's suspendCount actually is 0. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5849
Re: RFR: 8274687: JDWP deadlocks if some Java thread reaches wait in blockOnDebuggerSuspend [v7]
> This change fixes deadlocks described in the JBS-bug by: > > * Releasing `handlerLock` before waiting on `threadLock` in > `blockOnDebuggerSuspend()` > > * Notifying on `threadLock` in `threadControl_reset()` > > Also the actions in handleAppResumeBreakpoint() are moved/deferred until > doPendingTasks() runs. This is necessary because an event handler must not > release handlerLock first and foremost because handlers are called while > iterating the handler chain for an event type which is protected by > handlerLock > (see https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/5805) > > The first commit delays the cleanup actions after leaving the loop in > `debugLoop_run()`. It allows to reproduce the deadlock running the dispose003 > test with the command > > > make run-test > TEST=test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi/VirtualMachine/dispose/dispose003 > > > The second commit adds a new test that reproduces the deadlock when calling > threadControl_resumeThread() while a thread is waiting in > blockOnDebuggerSuspend(). > > The third commit contains the fix described above. With it the deadlocks > cannot be reproduced anymore. > > The forth commit removes the diagnostic code introduced with the first commit > again. > > The fix passed > > test/hotspot/jtreg/serviceability/jdwp > test/jdk/com/sun/jdi > test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdwp > test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdi Richard Reingruber has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: Call blockOnDebuggerSuspend() after setup of the resumer tracking. - Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5849/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5849/files/20f1f31b..0b0fef0e Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=5849=06 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=5849=05-06 Stats: 95 lines in 2 files changed: 31 ins; 36 del; 28 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5849.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/5849/head:pull/5849 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5849
Integrated: JDK-8275436 [BACKOUT] JDK-8271949 dumppath in -XX:FlightRecorderOptions does not affect
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 17:58:25 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: > This reverts commit 31500692d1503cb73249e0425e693049258a. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: a03119ce Author:Daniel D. Daugherty URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/a03119ce1a34642565c669bd2471f52eec088b96 Stats: 170 lines in 10 files changed: 3 ins; 138 del; 29 mod 8275436: [BACKOUT] JDK-8271949 dumppath in -XX:FlightRecorderOptions does not affect Reviewed-by: mgronlun - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5994
Re: RFR: JDK-8275436 [BACKOUT] JDK-8271949 dumppath in -XX:FlightRecorderOptions does not affect
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 17:58:25 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote: > This reverts commit 31500692d1503cb73249e0425e693049258a. Thanks for creating the backout Dan, looks good. - Marked as reviewed by mgronlun (Reviewer). PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5994
Re: RFR: JDK-8275436 [BACKOUT] JDK-8271949 dumppath in -XX:FlightRecorderOptions does not affect
On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 18:14:16 GMT, Markus Grönlund wrote: >> This reverts commit 31500692d1503cb73249e0425e693049258a. > > Thanks for creating the backout Dan, looks good. @mgronlun - Thanks for the fast review! - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5994
RFR: JDK-8275436 [BACKOUT] JDK-8271949 dumppath in -XX:FlightRecorderOptions does not affect
This reverts commit 31500692d1503cb73249e0425e693049258a. - Commit messages: - JDK-8275436 [BACKOUT] JDK-8271949 dumppath in -XX:FlightRecorderOptions does not affect Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5994/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=5994=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8275436 Stats: 170 lines in 10 files changed: 3 ins; 138 del; 29 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5994.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/5994/head:pull/5994 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5994
Integrated: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event
On Thu, 8 Jul 2021 19:47:26 GMT, Markus Grönlund wrote: > Greetings, > > Object.finalize() was deprecated in JDK9. There is an ongoing effort to > replace and mitigate Object.finalize() uses in the JDK libraries; please see > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253568 for more information. > > We also like to assist users in replacing and mitigating uses in non-JDK code. > > Hence, this changeset adds a periodic JFR event to help identify which > classes are overriding Object.finalize(). > > Thanks > Markus This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 72a976ef Author:Markus Grönlund URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/72a976ef05fc2c62657920a560a0abc60b27c852 Stats: 1917 lines in 36 files changed: 1375 ins; 409 del; 133 mod 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event Reviewed-by: coleenp, mchung, egahlin - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731
Re: RFR: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event [v12]
On Fri, 24 Sep 2021 22:31:18 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: >> Markus Grönlund has updated the pull request incrementally with one >> additional commit since the last revision: >> >> no precompiled headers and mtServiceability nmt classification > > Hi Markus, > > It's a little surprised to see Finalizer.c to depend JMM interface which is > used by `java.management` and `jdk.management` modules only. It's more > appropriate for it to be a JVM_* entry point for Finalizer to report > completion of the finalization instead.I understand that you want to make > FinalizerService to be a conditional feature which is a good idea. Such JVM > entry can be made as a nop if not INCLUDE_SERVICES. Thank you for staying around with this protracted PR. Thanks @mlchung , @coleenp and @egahlin for your reviews! - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731
Re: RFR: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event [v20]
> Greetings, > > Object.finalize() was deprecated in JDK9. There is an ongoing effort to > replace and mitigate Object.finalize() uses in the JDK libraries; please see > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253568 for more information. > > We also like to assist users in replacing and mitigating uses in non-JDK code. > > Hence, this changeset adds a periodic JFR event to help identify which > classes are overriding Object.finalize(). > > Thanks > Markus Markus Grönlund has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: no constexpr for constant values - Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731/files/85a46263..b3268c90 Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=4731=19 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=4731=18-19 Stats: 2 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 2 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/4731/head:pull/4731 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731
Re: RFR: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event [v10]
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 08:45:54 GMT, Erik Gahlin wrote: >> Markus Grönlund has updated the pull request incrementally with three >> additional commits since the last revision: >> >> - localize >> - cleanup >> - FinalizerStatistics > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Finalizer.java line 71: > >> 69: } >> 70: >> 71: > > extraneous whitespace? I think this version is outdated, and the extra whitespace was removed in later versions. - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731
Re: RFR: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event [v10]
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 08:42:58 GMT, Erik Gahlin wrote:
>> Markus Grönlund has updated the pull request incrementally with three
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - localize
>> - cleanup
>> - FinalizerStatistics
>
> test/jdk/jdk/jfr/event/runtime/TestFinalizerStatisticsEvent.java line 98:
>
>> 96: case TEST_CLASS_NAME: {
>> 97:
>> Asserts.assertTrue(event.getString("codeSource").startsWith("file://"));
>> 98: foundTestClassName = true;
>
> Could we (sanity) check "objects" and "totalFinalzersRun" fields as well?
It's risky to do because of the non-deterministic nature of when the Finalizer
thread runs (if at all). The best I could think of is to check if either field
is 0 or more, but that becomes so weak it's not much of a sanity check.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731
Re: RFR: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event [v10]
On Fri, 27 Aug 2021 15:23:35 GMT, Markus Grönlund wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Object.finalize() was deprecated in JDK9. There is an ongoing effort to
>> replace and mitigate Object.finalize() uses in the JDK libraries; please see
>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253568 for more information.
>>
>> We also like to assist users in replacing and mitigating uses in non-JDK
>> code.
>>
>> Hence, this changeset adds a periodic JFR event to help identify which
>> classes are overriding Object.finalize().
>>
>> Thanks
>> Markus
>
> Markus Grönlund has updated the pull request incrementally with three
> additional commits since the last revision:
>
> - localize
> - cleanup
> - FinalizerStatistics
Marked as reviewed by egahlin (Reviewer).
src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/Finalizer.java line 71:
> 69: }
> 70:
> 71:
extraneous whitespace?
test/jdk/jdk/jfr/event/runtime/TestFinalizerStatisticsEvent.java line 98:
> 96: case TEST_CLASS_NAME: {
> 97:
> Asserts.assertTrue(event.getString("codeSource").startsWith("file://"));
> 98: foundTestClassName = true;
Could we (sanity) check "objects" and "totalFinalzersRun" fields as well?
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731
Re: RFR: 8275384: Change nested classes in jdk.jconsole to static nested classes
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 20:32:43 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote: > Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which can be avoided. Marked as reviewed by mchung (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5974
Some call sites don't pass 'size' to sharedRuntime::dtrace_object_alloc/dtrace_object_alloc_base
Hi,
A new param named 'size' was added to
sharedRuntime::dtrace_object_alloc/dtrace_object_alloc_base
in JDK-8039904("dtrace/hotspot/Monitors/Monitors001 fails with "assert(s > 0)
failed: Bad size calculated").
But in some places where these two functions are called, this new parameter is
not passed,
such as TemplateTable::_new and PhaseMacroExpand::expand_dtrace_alloc_probe.
Was it intentional or should we fix it?
Thanks,
Denghui
Integrated: 8275322: Change nested classes in java.management to static nested classes
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021 06:43:13 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote: > Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which can be avoided. This pull request has now been integrated. Changeset: 1afddb25 Author:Andrey Turbanov Committer: Daniel Fuchs URL: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/commit/1afddb2560504c533d30b2f79d735f59f519e7c5 Stats: 6 lines in 3 files changed: 0 ins; 1 del; 5 mod 8275322: Change nested classes in java.management to static nested classes Reviewed-by: alanb, dfuchs, mchung, sspitsyn - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5962
Re: RFR: 8275385: Change nested classes in jdk.jdi to static nested classes
On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 17:28:37 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote: > Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which can be avoided. Marked as reviewed by sspitsyn (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5978
Re: RFR: 8275384: Change nested classes in jdk.jconsole to static nested classes
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 20:32:43 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote: > Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which can be avoided. Marked as reviewed by sspitsyn (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5974
Re: RFR: 8266936: Add a finalization JFR event [v19]
> Greetings, > > Object.finalize() was deprecated in JDK9. There is an ongoing effort to > replace and mitigate Object.finalize() uses in the JDK libraries; please see > https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8253568 for more information. > > We also like to assist users in replacing and mitigating uses in non-JDK code. > > Hence, this changeset adds a periodic JFR event to help identify which > classes are overriding Object.finalize(). > > Thanks > Markus Markus Grönlund has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision: relax memory ordering constraint - Changes: - all: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731/files - new: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731/files/d10eb309..85a46263 Webrevs: - full: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=4731=18 - incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=4731=17-18 Stats: 3 lines in 1 file changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 3 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/4731/head:pull/4731 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/4731
Re: RFR: 8275384: Change nested classes in jdk.jconsole to static nested classes
On Sat, 16 Oct 2021 20:32:43 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote: > Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which can be avoided. Marked as reviewed by alanb (Reviewer). - PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5974
RFR: 8275385: Change nested classes in jdk.jdi to static nested classes
Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which can be avoided. - Commit messages: - [PATCH] Change nested classes in jdk.jdi to static nested classes Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5978/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=5978=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8275385 Stats: 10 lines in 3 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 10 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5978.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/5978/head:pull/5978 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5978
RFR: 8275384: Change nested classes in jdk.jconsole to static nested classes
Non-static classes hold a link to their parent classes, which can be avoided. - Commit messages: - [PATCH] Change nested classes in jdk.jconsole to static nested classes Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5974/files Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk=5974=00 Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8275384 Stats: 12 lines in 5 files changed: 0 ins; 0 del; 12 mod Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5974.diff Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/5974/head:pull/5974 PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5974
